George H. W. Bush
George W. Bush
On this date law enforcement agents in Los Angeles Police Department usurped their positions in effect hostaging then President Ronald Reagan whom hesitated to act lending to the creation of the alienation of a private citizen to attack the United States Constitution.
Irrationalism is a form ideology that proceeds from premises that cannot be proved. It can also be based on a folk state. This can be love of the soil or a building block for ethnic nationalism.
The United States Constitution creates a citizen first and then a president. Hence the office is duty bound to uphold the rights of all. Three executive branches are created. They are the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.
What is manifest is the isolation of a citizen defacto from one's constitutional life. This in the proper is the enfranchisement of one's primary rights, or the first nine rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The tenth right simply defers certain rights back to the states. The secondary law was created to uphold the primary law which has precedence. Here irrationality develops as the above named supra, have failed in their duty as the First Citizen to uphold the rule instead choosing their own interest disguised as the will of the majority. This immediately invokes the spectre of Jean Jacque Rousseau's Social Contract. At hand is the classic case of man's individual liberty versus the reign of the civil state. The sovereign is the legal and moral collective. The General Will is the incorporation of the collective nation's will into the state as an artificial corporate person. Here the invertaebration of the General Will from the exposition.
1. THAT SOVEREIGNTY IS INALIENABLE
I hold then that Sovereignty, being nothing less than the exercise of the general will, can never be alienated, and that the Sovereign, who is no less than a collective being, cannot be represented except by himself: the power indeed may be transmitted, but not the will.
We can see from this that the sovereign power, absolute, sacred and inviolable as it is, does not and cannot exceed the limits of general conventions, and that every man may dispose at will of such goods and liberty as these conventions leave him; so that the Sovereign never has a right to lay more charges on one subject than on another, because, in that case, the question becomes particular, and ceases to be within its competency.
5. THE RIGHT OF LIFE AND DEATH
THE question is often asked how individuals, having no right to dispose of their own lives, can transfer to the Sovereign a right which they do not possess. The difficulty of answering this question seems to me to lie in its being wrongly stated. Every man has a right to risk his own life in order to preserve it. Has it ever been said that a man who throws himself out of the window to escape from a fire is guilty of suicide? Has such a crime ever been laid to the charge of him who perishes in a storm because, when he went on board, he knew of the danger?
The social treaty has for its end the preservation of the contracting parties. He who wills the end wills the means also, and the means must involve some risks, and even some losses. He who wishes to preserve his life at others' expense should also, when it is necessary, be ready to give it up for their sake. Furthermore, the citizen is no longer the judge of the dangers to which the law-desires him to expose himself; and when the prince says to him: "It is expedient for the State that you should die," he ought to die, because it is only on that condition that he has been living in security up to the present, and because his life is no longer a mere bounty of nature, but a gift made conditionally by the State.
Here we must not be frivolous political philosophy and self-preservation are what is laying waste with the positive law reigning as as the controlling suprasytem as gentle abstract turned into battering ram of shrapnel as incompetence and corruption. The inviolable constitution or compact turns now to be identical to the interest of leader. This is a Fuerher Principle when wrought out of it's true nature and ends which is the preservation of Justice for the individual and collective by the power of the state. It may also be a system of leaders as is the present case a Perfect Dictatorship.
It is evident at the present in-continuo that any president elected is no more than a democratically elected tyrant.
The president is created from the citizen and is the caretaker of the rights and duties of such in type and kind. It does not predispose any tyranny of majority or minority as a person or partisan party system to usurp these right to advance or preserve their reign on power. Herein a classical circular folly emerges as a Racketeered Influenced Corrupt Organization.
John Locke writes:
Sect. 172. Thirdly, Despotical power is an absolute, arbitrary power one man has over another, to take away his life, whenever he pleases. This is a power, which neither nature gives, for it has made no such distinction between one man and another; nor compact can convey: for man not having such an arbitrary power over his own life, cannot give another man such a power over it; but it is the effect only of forfeiture, which the aggressor makes of his own life, when he puts himself into the state of war with another: for having quitted reason, which God hath given to be the rule betwixt man and man, and the common bond whereby human kind is united into one fellowship and society; and having renounced the way of peace which that teaches, and made use of the force of war, to compass his unjust ends upon another, where he has no right; and so revolting from his own kind to that of beasts, by making force, which is theirs, to be his rule of right, he renders himself liable to be destroyed by the injured person, and the rest of mankind, that will join with him in the execution of justice, as any other wild beast, or noxious brute, with whom mankind can have neither society nor security*. And thus captives, taken in a just and lawful war, and such only, are subject to a despotical power, which, as it arises not from compact, so neither is it capable of any, but is the state of war continued: for what compact can be made with a man that is not master of his own life? what condition can he perform? and if he be once allowed to be master of his own life, the despotical, arbitrary power of his master ceases. He that is master of himself, and his own life, has a right too to the means of preserving it; so that as soon as compact enters, slavery ceases, and he so far quits his absolute power, and puts an end to the state of war, who enters into conditions with his captive. (*Another copy corrected by Mr. Locke, has it thus, Noxious brute that is destructive to their being.)
Correctly speaking the state of nature or the model of governance that posits man in his natural state in his natural environment is reverted to a play of power and arbitrary treatment. As seen the Constitution and Bill of Rights can only exist as such exist in an ordered and ruled civil state hence The Social Contract Theory. What exists to date in-continiuo is that state of war, todo a todo, or every one against everyone. Here the individual has very few resources in the artificial state that was created to help preserve what natural rights we possess as human and as well as what may be strenghtened. The state begins to systematically alienate one individual while aiming the general population as informants to attack this person to save themselves as a legitimate expression of the rule of law.
This is the tyranny of the majority.